[H-GEN] Alston's censorship bill has passed

[Martin Pool]

(Note reply-to: being general at humbug.org.au vs Martin Pool <martinp at mincom.com>)

Anthony Towns wrote:
> I wonder if they pay damages to restaurants whom they
> shut down because they can't get rid of their rat infestation.

I wonder if they allow special exemptions for companies that would find
it 'uneconomical' to comply with environmental restrictions?  In some
cases they certainly do, if the company concerned has good mates.

Jason Henry Parker wrote:
> That said, however, I'm finding it hard to get *too* worked up[6]
> about the bill itself---we all knew the Government would have a crack
> at this sooner or later, and I'm more than confident that the system
> will collapse under its own weight and/or be completely unusable.

It seems to only extend the current print/film censorship laws to the
Internet.  (I wonder where the Canberra of the Internet will be?)  At
least there is no ban on privacy technology.  So it could be worse.

The danger seems to me to be not in the conditions themselves, but in
the environment they create.  Suppose we wanted to enforce the existing
laws more effectively, and so quadrupled the size of the police force,
gave them military equipment and tactics, and removed restrictions on
arrest-without-charge, search and seizure of evidence and
interrogation.  Certainly I'm still legally allowed to do everything I
could do yesterday, but in practice I live in a much less free society.

Mark Suter:
> This legislation goes far beyond mere Government Censorship.  In order
> to discuss it in the right frame of mind, please re-read _1984_.

Better yet, read 
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0671728687/qid=927763730/sr=1-2/002-4966548-8413445

Godwin's rule prevents me from discussing it in detail, but suffice it
to say that it's just as gripping as 1984, and gives a broader picture
of how things ended up that way.

By the time it's clear that you're heading for a totalitarian society it
is too late.  I'm not at all saying things are going that way in
Australia by any means, but in general once somebody has strong control
and self-censorship in the media any opposition becomes much more
difficult.  "First they came for the Communists, and I was not a
Communist so I did nothing..."

Jason Garland:
 
> Obviously the Government considers that a future where Australians use Big 
> Pond to go to slow overseas sites is the only plausible scenario in which 
> they get a good price for Telstra ;-) 
 
It's also worth noting that the government mentioned in that book made a
great deal of money from selling books and newspapers, once they'd
censored the competition out of existance or bought them at fire-sale
rates.

Section 4.1.20(1) of the bill says:

>      (1) If a person has reason to believe that an Internet service provider 
>      is supplying an Internet carriage service that enables
>      end-users to access prohibited content or potential prohibited content, 
>      the person may make a complaint to the ABA about
>      the matter. 

Can anyone think of an ISP that _doesn't_ enable people to access
potentially prohibited content -- in other words, an ISP without an
omniscient filter?  I'm amused by the idea of every Internet user
reporting every ISP on the first of January 2000, "frivolous complaints"
clauses aside.  Surely an astroturf campaign to /take down/ (nice choice
of words) a competing small-medium ISP on the grounds that they allow
access to the rest of the world would take very little effort.

-- 
Martin Pool                                 Certainly not speaking for
Mincom

--
This is list (humbug) general handled by majordomo at lists.humbug.org.au .
Postings only from subscribed addresses of lists general or general-post.